4 ms·

Their Wehrmacht Was Better Than Our Army (1985)

9 points by Ambolia 5y ago

Ambolia 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20220227180910/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220227180910/https://www.washi...
em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
"There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent." -Lao Tzu, 4th century BC
- walkhour 5y ago
  Who was understanding their enemies? The biggest mistake of Germany was thinking England wouldn't declare war over Poland, you may say Germany was deluded but why do you think they underestimated their enemies? What enemies in particular? Stalin and Khrushchev thought the URRS would've fallen without US support, so they underestimated the ability of the US to support the URRS? Note this support started before the US was declared war.
  - retrac 5y ago
    > why do you think they underestimated their enemies? [...] Note this support started before the US was declared war. That's a great example of the German hubris in WW II, actually. Hitler made no efforts to keep the Americans out of the war, and eventually he declared war on the United States. Not the other way around. The Americans had no explicit justification against Germany and it's unclear if they would have even immediately entered the Europe theatre. But Hitler declared war and gave Roosevelt a gift-wrapped justification politically, to immediately enter the European war and even prioritize it. It makes no sense for him to have done that. I think he must have simply dismissed the USA as irrelevant, with victory in Europe pending before they could apply their industry to the war. That one capricious act suggests an enormous underestimation of both the short term Soviet resilience and the USA's eventual long-term war-making potential.
    - walkhour 5y ago
      > I think he must have simply dismissed the USA as irrelevant This could be the case, however I've never found a convincing explanation of why Germany declared war to the US, maybe it was the German hubris. It's not like FDR was appalled by it.
      - Nomentatus 5y ago
        Hitler had earlier promised the Japanese that if they attacked the Americans he would delcare war on the U.S. as well. He kept his promise, likely fearing that the Japanese might settle quickly otherwise, or because in many ways, esp at sea, he was already at war with the U.S.
walkhour 5y ago
80% of the German casualties happened in the eastern front, and there is where the war occurred and was decided. It doesn't matter if the Wehrmacht was superior or inferior to the US army. A few months after the US was declared war, after the winter of 1941 to 1942, top German generals thought the war couldn't be won. Germany was stuck between two fronts and was unable to make progress in any. With enough time the high or low quality US troops would be joining the war. The Germans weren't close to getting the atomic bomb, so the quality of the US army respective to the German army was irrelevant to the outcome of the war.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  It doesn't matter to whom? Your example shows how important the outperformance of the Wehrmacht was. They lost how many million of their best soldiers in the eastern front? Then they fought the Western allies, they fought with a crumbling economy. And yet: "On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances ... This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost." It doesn't matter? It mattered. From the article: "this was an error of judgment that continues to cost America dear today. The shortcomings of American infantry in World War II were repeated in Korea, and in Vietnam. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Indochina war revealed unique, unprecedented problems in the U.S. Army. The American army created in World War II had suffered weaknesses and difficulties. These weaknesses, highlighted by media attention and by defeat, had existed since World War II".
  - walkhour 5y ago
    I was making the point the US army being superior or inferior didn't matter when it came to deciding the winning side. That it mattered when considering different things, there's no doubt.

9 points by Ambolia 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20220227180910/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220227180910/https://www.washi...

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago

"There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent." -Lao Tzu, 4th century BC

walkhour 5y ago
Who was understanding their enemies? The biggest mistake of Germany was thinking England wouldn't declare war over Poland, you may say Germany was deluded but why do you think they underestimated their enemies? What enemies in particular? Stalin and Khrushchev thought the URRS would've fallen without US support, so they underestimated the ability of the US to support the URRS? Note this support started before the US was declared war.
- retrac 5y ago
  > why do you think they underestimated their enemies? [...] Note this support started before the US was declared war. That's a great example of the German hubris in WW II, actually. Hitler made no efforts to keep the Americans out of the war, and eventually he declared war on the United States. Not the other way around. The Americans had no explicit justification against Germany and it's unclear if they would have even immediately entered the Europe theatre. But Hitler declared war and gave Roosevelt a gift-wrapped justification politically, to immediately enter the European war and even prioritize it. It makes no sense for him to have done that. I think he must have simply dismissed the USA as irrelevant, with victory in Europe pending before they could apply their industry to the war. That one capricious act suggests an enormous underestimation of both the short term Soviet resilience and the USA's eventual long-term war-making potential.
  - walkhour 5y ago
    > I think he must have simply dismissed the USA as irrelevant This could be the case, however I've never found a convincing explanation of why Germany declared war to the US, maybe it was the German hubris. It's not like FDR was appalled by it.
    - Nomentatus 5y ago
      Hitler had earlier promised the Japanese that if they attacked the Americans he would delcare war on the U.S. as well. He kept his promise, likely fearing that the Japanese might settle quickly otherwise, or because in many ways, esp at sea, he was already at war with the U.S.

walkhour 5y ago

80% of the German casualties happened in the eastern front, and there is where the war occurred and was decided. It doesn't matter if the Wehrmacht was superior or inferior to the US army. A few months after the US was declared war, after the winter of 1941 to 1942, top German generals thought the war couldn't be won. Germany was stuck between two fronts and was unable to make progress in any. With enough time the high or low quality US troops would be joining the war. The Germans weren't close to getting the atomic bomb, so the quality of the US army respective to the German army was irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
It doesn't matter to whom? Your example shows how important the outperformance of the Wehrmacht was. They lost how many million of their best soldiers in the eastern front? Then they fought the Western allies, they fought with a crumbling economy. And yet: "On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances ... This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost." It doesn't matter? It mattered. From the article: "this was an error of judgment that continues to cost America dear today. The shortcomings of American infantry in World War II were repeated in Korea, and in Vietnam. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Indochina war revealed unique, unprecedented problems in the U.S. Army. The American army created in World War II had suffered weaknesses and difficulties. These weaknesses, highlighted by media attention and by defeat, had existed since World War II".
- walkhour 5y ago
  I was making the point the US army being superior or inferior didn't matter when it came to deciding the winning side. That it mattered when considering different things, there's no doubt.